On the bad taste scale OJ Simpson rates a perfect 10

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

But an Anti Semite, hes not. If he is then i am and alot of us are.

He is a blatant anti-Semite. So is his father. And Konovalov pointed out why your other comments are a possible consideration for concern on their own merit.

"Who me?"
"Yes, you!"
"Couldn't be!"
"Then who?!"

[kiwi_2005]

Well i must be then

Hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew? I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie. He had a passion to tell the story about Jesus.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

You being Australian would you feel the same way if she said the same thing about aborigines?

Said what about Aborigines?

[kiwi_2005]

This sums it up.
If hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew? I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie. I saw Jesus the Jew been crucified because of his beliefs by Jews his own ppl. He had a passion to tell the story about Jesus. If he was anti semite he wouldn't of even gone near that movie. An anti semite would of made out Jesus was not jewish but some other nationality and the Jews killed him. Did he do that in his movie? Nazis beliefs that Jesus was aryan blood killed by Jews - thats anti semite.

My question with Konovalov is if Judith Reagans said the same thing about the aborigines would he say the same thing - I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.

If his answer is yes then good for him.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

If hes anti semite yet he made a movie about Jesus who is a Jew?

LOL!

Yes, therefore it is not possible that the Church throughout its history, could have ever issued anti-Semitic edicts or preached anti-Semitic teachings.

Nope. Couldn't be. After all, Jesus was a Jew.
[quote]I did not see any anti whateva when i saw that movie.[/url]
The funny thing is I never mentioned Gibson's movie nor was I referring to it. I am not referring to the move "The Passion" whatsoever. That's a topic on its own.

I saw Jesus the Jew been crucified because of his beliefs by Jews his own ppl.

Jewish courts had long before banned capital punishment. Crucifixion is a Roman method of capital punishment and would be forbidden to be implemented even if the Sanhedrin could hand out capital punishment.

2000 years of being lied to has rubbed off on some people.

Out the door I must go.........................

[kiwi_2005]

Good cya later

Thing is Harod asked the Jews who should it be? the murderer or Jesus? The Jews chose Jesus. And saved the murderer.

It was up to the Jews they had the last word they could of saved Jesus but they chose a murderer to be saved instead. And had one of their own cruified.

Of cause no doubt your have an anwser as your not christain am i right?

And its the christain nations that stand by the Jews today. Cause we know how to forgive.

Out the door i must go...

EDIT: Oh BTW before anyone start accusing me of being anti - semite? No far from it. I mentioned along time ago on here my exwife is Jewish blood and no I have no grudge or anything were great friends. Therefore my son who lives with me is part Jewish. My motherinlaw who visits Isreal every yr whom i get on very well with is a great grandmother to my son. If i was anti-semite or whateva i would have nothing to do with my ex-wife her family and my son. My point is Mel should be given another chance, he aint anti-semite. But yes he does have a demon - alcohol which he needs to solve.

Now im off.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Good cya later

Back! :p

Thing is Harod asked the Jews who should it be? the murderer or Jesus? The Jews chose Jesus. And saved the murderer.

It was up to the Jews they had the last word they could of saved Jesus but they chose a murderer to be saved instead. And had one of their own cruified.

I have no reason to assume the story is true. Example:

Jesus or Barabbas? Jesus is Sentenced to Die (Mark 15:6-15)

From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Analysis and Commentary
6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. 7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them. 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. 12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him. 15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
Compare: Matthew 27:15-31; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:38-19:16

Jesus vs. Barabbas
The historically inaccurate image of an indecisive Pilate is continued when he offers to release either Jesus or Barabbas to the crowds of Jews. Pilate is depicted as almost desperate to find an excuse to let Jesus go, but the blood lust of the Jews forces him to execute an innocent man.

Was there a custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy feast day? No, there is absolutely no evidence that any such custom existed. While it certainly sounds like it would be nice to believe in, it would also be contrary to typically harsh Roman practices.

They simply would not have let thieves, murders, or political dissidents go on account of an odd Jewish festival. Even if such a practice existed, however, there is no way that Pilate would consent to allow Barabbas go over Jesus — Barabbas is specifically described has having participated in insurrection, a political crime. No one who tried to overthrow Roman rule was allowed to live. Jesus, even if he did claim to be King of the Jews, hadn’t done anything overt or violent yet.

Why did Mark make up this custom? Probably for the same reason that he made up the image of crowds of Jews calling out for Jesus to be crucified: it allows him to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Roman authorities and onto the shoulders of the Jews. Mark’s community of Jewish Christians lived outside Palestine and under Roman rule. They would have been watched, and had the authorities found them developing a religious sect after a man executed by Romans for being a political revolutionary, they would have cracked down even harder.

Some have tried to excuse the author’s shifting of blame to the Jews by arguing that there was a theological rather than political motive here: Barabbas was supposed to be seen as a violent revolutionary whom the Jews preferred to the more peaceful policies of Jesus. Such a preference is plausible, to be sure, but the aforementioned absence of this custom makes the entire rationalization implausible. Besides, arguing that the Jews preferred violence and ended up dying by the sword because they chose the sword isn’t exactly a positive depiction of Jews.

It’s likely that Mark’s invention of Barabbas extended to creating an ironic name as well: Bar-abbas literally means “son of the father.” A false “son of the father” was chosen by the Jews to be released to them while the true “son of the father” was delivered to the Romans for crucifixion. Some early manuscripts of Matthew even give Barabbas a surname: Jesus. This, however, may have simply been a copyist's error because the Greek words for “to you” (“release to you Barabbas”) could have looked like an abbreviation for the name Jesus.

But for argument's sake, let's say it did happen.

"The Jews"? How big was this "multitude"? 100? 1000? 10000? The entire nation? The leaders of the nation or ignorant and idle people, with nothing better to do with their time? No one ever asks. No one knows.

But let's again assume that there were even 10000 people there. Barabbas murdered whom? One or more Roman in an act of insurrection. He would have been considered a hero and rightfully so under the suffering incurred by the Jews throughout the country for decades.

Jesus, on the other hand, was, frankly, a nobody. In fact, he was a trouble maker. There were lots of people during the era trying to awaken the nation's messianic yearning (nothing like what Christianity concocted later on). The Roman's dealt with such rabble rouser by the standard method of crucifixion until death. 1000's died this way and were kept up there for all to see and learn a lesson from.

So did they chose against Jesus or for Barabbus? I can't tell. Can you?

The funniest thing is that if this "multitude" had chosen to spare Jesus, there most likely never would have been a religion known as Christianity. Jesus, at best, would have succeeded in forming a new small deviant subsect of Judaism, like others did at the time, and wondered off into the sunset of the Judean hills or dessert, where the Romans would have hunted them down eventually anyway. So if I were you, I'd say you owe this supposed "multitude" big time.

Of cause no doubt your have an anwser as your not christain am i right?

Heh.

And its the christain nations that stand by the Jews today. Cause we know how to forgive.

Other than Micronesia and to a constantly lesser extent the US Government, who do you have in mind?

We don't need your forgiveness. You need ours for the attrocities Christianity has caused our people over 2000 years.

Out the door i must go...

Must be contageous.

EDIT: Oh BTW before anyone start accusing me of being anti - semite? No far from it. I mentioned along time ago on here my exwife is Jewish blood and no I have no grudge or anything were great friends. Therefore my son who lives with me is part Jewish.

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish. In Judaism, there is no such thing as part-Jewish.

My motherinlaw who visits Isreal every yr whom i get on very well with is a great grandmother to my son. If i was anti-semite or whateva i would have nothing to do with my ex-wife her family and my son. My point is Mel should be given another chance, he aint anti-semite. But yes he does have a demon - alcohol which he needs to solve.

Now im off.

Getting late here now, too.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

My question with Konovalov is if Judith Reagans said the same thing about the aborigines would he say the same thing - I hope that Judith Reagans career is effectively over.

If his answer is yes then good for him.

On that hypothetical I would have to say yes but that isn't really relevant here.

[kiwi_2005]

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish. In Judaism, there is no such thing as part-Jewish.

Thats what the grandmother tells me my son is full Jewish so to not offend i agree with her. But! Im maori/croatian the father and i like to think my son has some of my blood as well so to me he's part Jewish/maori/croatian

But yes i know where your coming from when hes 18 she (grandmother) is taking him to Jerusalem.

[Dan D]

Comment on the side-topic: "Jesus trial"
After the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, several Christian theologians filed petitions to the High Court in Jerusalem to reopen the criminal proceeding against Jesus.
It was argued that only now the Jewish people had their own sovereign jurisdiction again, so that it was time for a revision of the proceeding.
The High Court delved into the petitions and rejected them, arguing that all process-related documents are missing and that the only available records, the Gospels (Mark. 15, 53-15. Matthew. 26, 57-27, 30, Luke. 22, 66-23; John 18, 12-19,14) are tendentious.

The records say that Jesus after his arrestment was first handed over to the Jewish court.
That court decided to hand Jesus over to the Roman Governor Pilate:
“Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.” (Mark. 15,1).
The Jews did not have the right of penal jurisdiction (“It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death”- John18,31).
But above all, Jesus was handed over so that Pilate would not have pretence to engage against the Jewish people because of the “agitator” Jesus:
“Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should perish for the people “(John 18, 37-38).
The charges against Jesus were:
1) temple desecration
„Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.”
(Mark. 14,57-58)
2) defraudation of tax to the imperial regnancy
“And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."
(Luke 23,2)
3) presumption of royal dignity
“Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. -"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied”(Mathew 26, 63-64).
For the Roman Governor Pilate the presumption of royal dignity was the most significant point. Strangely enough, he did not deal with tax defraudation.
Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered, “So you say.” (Mark 15,2).
Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18,37-38).
According to Roman law the presumption of royal dignity meant a lèse-majesté of the Roman Emperor for which the Lex Julia provided the death penalty.
“So then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him “. (John 19,1).
Jesus was sentenced to death under Roman law and executed by Roman authorities.
Of course there was also the Barrabas incident, according to the records.
Pilate: “But you have a custom, that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Therefore do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not this man, but Barrabas” (John 18, 39-40).

I wonder what would have happened if the audience had shouted instead: “Yes, release to us the “King of the Jews” (which they thought was untrue anyway).
I guess if Jesus “King of Jews” then would have continued to walk about and preach love, forgiveness and what some people call temple desecration and tax defraudation and causing uproar, Pilate sooner or later would have sent out his troops against Jesus and the Jews.
Looks like a lose-lose situation for the Jews to me.

[August]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

If his mother is Jewish, then he's 100% Jewish.

Says you, but that doesn't make him 100% Jewish in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[Enigma]

I love watching people argue over myth.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by August

Says you, but that doesn't make him 100% Jewish in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Says Jewish law. If someone's going to relate something about someone's Jewishness, as Kiwi did, there's nothing disasterous in telling him how Judaism itself actually relates to that situation.

No one said you or anyone else had to agree.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I love watching people argue over myth.

We believe in you.

:p

[Enigma]

Well its a good thing that so called "laws" of a religion are optional, eh?